State v. Southern Kraft Corporation
Decision Date | 28 May 1942 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 161. |
Citation | 8 So.2d 886,243 Ala. 223 |
Parties | STATE v. SOUTHERN KRAFT CORPORATION. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1942.
Thos S. Lawson, Atty. Gen., and John W. Lapsley and J. Edw Thornton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.
McCorvey, McLeod, Turner & Rogers, of Mobile McQueen & McQueen, of Tuscaloosa, and Benners, Burr McKamy & Forman and Frontis H. Moore, all of Birmingham, for appellee.
The State Commissioner of Revenue, acting as the chief executive officer of the department of revenue [Code of 1940, Title 51, § 115], made an assessment under the Use Tax Act, approved February 28, 1939, Code of 1940, Title 51, §§ 787-811, against appellee, Southern Kraft Corporation, a body corporate, engaged in Mobile County, in the business of manufacturing Kraft pulp and Kraft paper from sap pine for resale. The basis for computing the tax is the sale and purchase price paid by appellee for salt cake, sulphur, lime, starch, hydrate of lime and chlorine, used by the appellee in the process of manufacturing said products.
The appellee protested the levy before the Commissioner of Revenue on grounds, among others, that the said materials, so purchased and used in the manufacturing of Kraft pulp and Kraft paper, "entered into and became an ingredient or component part" of said products so manufactured for resale, and said purchase was at wholesale, within the purview of said act, and therefore not subject to the use tax.
This protest was overruled by the Commission and the taxpayer appealed to the Circuit Court of Mobile County, in Equity, where an issue was made up and tried on documentary evidence, facts stipulated, and the testimony of witnesses taken ore tenus in the presence of the court, and on the issues thus presented the court stated the following conclusions of law and fact:
The stipulation of facts shows that said materials specifically enumerated in Exhibit A attached there were purchased by the appellee outside of the State of Alabama and brought into and used in Mobile County in the processes of manufacturing its products, and that no tax of any sort had been paid thereon.
The evidence further shows that pine wood is the basic material used in the manufacture of Kraft pulp and Kraft paper, 20% of which "enters into and becomes an ingredient or component part" of the pulp; that starch, hydrate of lime (slacked lime) and chlorine are used only in the process of converting the pulp into paper, and that a large percentage of the calcium, the combined product of hydrate of lime and chlorine, and the starch enter into and become an ingredient or component part of Kraft paper.
The evidence further shows, to state its general effect, that through the chemical reaction in the process of manufacture 6/10 of 1% of the salt cake or sodium remains as an ingredient of the pulp and goes into the paper; that 2/100 of 1% or less of the calcium, the chemical...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Reynolds Metals Co.
...Inc. v. State, 256 Ala. 515(2), 55 So.2d 812; Alabama-Georgia Syrup Co. v. State, 253 Ala. 49, 42 So.2d 796; State v. Southern Kraft Corp., 243 Ala. 223, 8 So.2d 886; State v. Olan Mills, Inc., 258 Ala. 303, 63 So.2d Our statute defining a sale as set out in the Uniform Sales Act of the Cod......
-
State v. Calumet & Hecla Consol. Copper Co.
...basis theory,' which thought and theory this court declined to accept in the Southern Kraft Corporation case (State v. Southern Kraft Corp.), 243 Ala. 223, 8 So.2d 886. It is our opinion that if the overhead crane here involved is a machine used in manufacturing personal property that the e......
-
State v. Bay Towing & Dredging Co.
...v. Advertiser Co., 257 Ala. 423, 59 So.2d 576; Paramount-Richards Theatres v. State, 256 Ala. 515, 55 So.2d 812; State v. Southern Kraft Corp., 243 Ala. 223, 8 So.2d 886; Layne Central Co. v. Curry, 243 Ala. 165, 8 So.2d 839. The purpose and effect of the two laws is thus succinctly stated ......
-
Al-Tom Inv., Inc. v. Director of Revenue
...the producer or manufacturer produces or sells, is subject to the sales tax.4 See notes 2 and 3, supra.5 See, State v. Southern Kraft Corporation, 243 Ala. 223, 8 So.2d 886 (1942); Boswell v. General Oils, Inc., 368 So.2d 27 (Ala.Cir.App.1978); Ex parte Disco Aluminum Products Co., Inc., 45......